Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2007 election issues

Is there any reason why someone keeps on deleting what are cited by the media as the main issues in the lead-up to the election? One would think that a list of those topics most highly cited by political commentators as election issues would be worth mentioning in an article on the election. This is the text I added:

Issues expected to play the highest importance in the upcoming election campaign include Howard's controversial advocacy of nuclear energy, global warming policies, new pro-business Industrial Relations laws, increases in interest rates, the corruption in the AWB, Iraq war policy, and Beazley's personal unpopularity.

Okay, it isn't great, but it is kind of hard for people to work on improving it when it is constantly deleted. I honestly can't see why people are citing this as original research, each of these issues gets major play in the Australian media in regards to the 2007 election.

Eg http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20801241-5007146,00.html http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20782414-5006301,00.html http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1788660.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/next-to-the-beazer-protesters-sounded-mildly-irritated/2006/11/30/1164777724420.html etc etc

These are the big issues, you could probably add water to the list too. So perhaps try to fix up the section rather than just delete it. Sad mouse 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the section is easier the more decent stuff there is to work with. "Predicted by the Australian media" is better than the original "expected", but still seems quite weaselly. However, the main problem is that most of the references given don't actually back up what is claimed in the sentence. It is original research to take the issues you see most mentioned in the media and say that they are predicted as the highest importance issues. (It's arguably even OR to say that they are the issues most mentioned in the media.) Yes, it's worth mentioning important issues, but it's hard enough to do that well aftdr the election, and takes even more care now. JPD (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not comfortable with the issues being mentioned. I agree it seems like original research and too open to bias. -- Barrylb 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

True, the section is open to bias, but we just have to police that as a group. To try to impart an understanding of the election to our readers without some discussion of the key issues would be impossible. I would suggest listing the issues as identified by the major parties (easier to verify) - the media will take their lead from there. Joestella 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nwe opinion polls

I was watching SkyNews earlier today on Austar, and they showed a newly revised opinion poll showing that popularity has shifted, with Howard at 45% and Rudd at 43%. Now, does anyone have a concrete source we can use for these numbers? CeeWhy2 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Senate table

It seems that both on Firefox and IE, the table for current senators under the senate section do not display. The toggle option already shows hide, so I click on it, nothing happens, click on it again (as show) and only then does it show the table. Are other people getting this? Timeshift 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The default should be fixed now.--cj | talk 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Differing margins

I'm trying to figure out why the stats im using for the pendulum (source here) are different to those in the marginal seats table used here... does the marginal seats table use margins based on post-redistribution and my source pre-redistribution, or the other way around? Timeshift 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The text accompanying the table in the article claims that the figures there are post-redistribution. (A source really should be given for those figures!) The other table you link to includes Gwydir and not Flynn, so it would appear to be pre-redistribution. (It's not clear to me what publication this table is from, but the URL also hints that it may have been published before the redristribution!) JPD (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've it. Timeshift 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My source for the pendulum was Malcolm Mackerras in The Australian, but I can't now give a date for it. Adam 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a source and will make corrections and finish the pendulum when I can. Timeshift 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "corrections," bear in mind that there is no absolutely "correct" version of the pendulum, because NSW and Qld have been redistributed, and the 2-party majorities for seats in these states must be guesswork. Mackerras's pendulum will differ slightly from Antony Green's or the AEC's, but none of them is more correct than the other. Adam 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still safer and to show the post-redistribution result as opposed to the pre isn't it? Timeshift 10:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course an estimate of the post-redistribution 2-party majorities must be shown, but they can only be estimates. There is no exact way of re-allocating votes from the old boundaries to the new boundaries. Adam 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Found an excellent resource on Pollbludger for the redistributions. All done. Timeshift 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever table we end up using, it should have, either as a footnote, or more clearly as part of the table, something saying where the redistributed figures come from. As Adam says, they are only estimates, and we need to say whose estimates they are. JPD (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Old people in Parliament

I have removed the two lists of old people who are apparently ripe for retirement. Either source retirement speculation or leave it out; age has never been a barrier to serving in parliament. Joestella 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a useful list at an earlier stage, but most if not all of those on that list have now confirmed that they are indeed standing. Rebecca 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adam 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not compile such a list in future. At least not without credible retirement speculation for a given MP in the media first. Joestella 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gigantic tables

Attention whoever is creating and inserting enormous tables: I know making tables is fun, but they must be of a proportionate size to their importance in the article. I have removed the table showing the complete membership of the Senate: it is not directly relevant to this article. The "pendulum" table is far too big and elaborate for the purposes of this article. All this is needed here is a simple list. Also the marginal seats should come at the top, not at the bottom. I suggest it be restructured and moved to its own article. If this doesn't happen I will delete it. Adam 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the pendulum table is one of the clearest ways to show the state of the parties, a list with all marginals mixed from both :parties tells a much less clear story. The only change I could suggest is that it be alighted at the safest, not the most :marginals seat, as to more clearly show which seats are needed to change, and how big the Government's majority is, in one :glance. PfkaH 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree a pendulum table is needed. My point is that this one is far too big and obtrusive. Also, as I said, the most marginal seats should appear at the top, not at the bottom. Adam 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My smaller pendulum here got removed. Timeshift 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Even that one is too big, as I said when you posted it. In that point in the article all we need is a table of the key marginals. The full pendulum should go either at the end of the article, or in a separate article. Adam 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, I have only ever seen the pendulum published with the most marginal at the bottom - as the pendulum metaphor implies (a motionless pendulum points down, to 0%). Second, the state of the parties in the Senate, and in the reps, is directly relevant to this article. The table consolidates the available information and makes it comprehensive. Joestella 11:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The state of the parties in the Senate and the Reps can be stated in two sentences, and indeed is already stated. It doesn't need two humungous and not-very-clear tables. I agree that in a standard pendulum the marginal seats appear at the bottom, but the table as presented is not really a pendulum, it is two parallel lists. The important information in this list is: what are the 16 most vulnerable government seats? This should appear at the top where it can be seen most readily. Adam 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever seen an electoral pendulum with the most marginal seats at the top - why on earth would the most irrelevant information (the seats that couldn't change hands even in a landslide) be highlighted at the top? Rebecca 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When the pendulum is actually drawn as a pendulum, then the focal point is at the bottom. JPD (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an argument about what a pendulum is. The point is that we need a simple and clear table showing the most marginal seats in order, with the most marginal at the top. The table we have is not such a table. I am going to move this table to a new page, and reinstate the simple table we had previously. Adam 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now done so. The new article Australian general election 2007: House of Representatives table needs some explanatory text. I will revert any attempt to reinsert the big table in this article. Adam 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the list of coalition marginals with a list of all marginals. We can't say for sure which way the swing is going, what with Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. If this is still too "gigantic" for Adam Carr's taste, simply remove rows from the top and replace the term "marginal" with "most marginal" or "margins of less than". Joestella 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "pendulum" is a standard feature of Australian politics, and it is drawn with the marginals at the bottom. It is not inherent in the structure of a table that the most important information goes at the top - recent entries and totals go at the bottom, for example. Our readers will not find the pendulum-like order any more difficult to read.

That said, the prose should probably do more to highlight the most marginal seats on the coalition side. Joestella 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think the table is ugly and unclear, and less informative than the smaller one. But I no longer care enough to argue about it. Adam 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues

That list of issues looks a touch biased to me. I suggest that the big issues will be:

1. the economy
2. education
3. health

I don't think anybody cares about AWB to the extent of it swaying a vote, and I am surprised to find it listed as one of the major issues. --Pete 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the best way to tackle this when I worked toward getting the 2006 South Australian general election rated as one of Wikipedia's featured articles is to simply include every single issue you can find as long as you can provide citation for it - that way there can be no claims of bias. And also, the issues section does not belong in the lead. Timeshift 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it a bit. Have removed AWB. + I agree with Timeshift, it shouldn't be in the lead. Rafy 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The South Australian article, of course, includes a bunch of issues that achieved no profile in the campaign – the text concedes as much. A better starting-point is what politicians say the big issues are; or failing that, what voters tell pollsters the big issues are. Joestella 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Table

I'm not too sure Preferred prime-minister/2PP ratings should be included in the top table below the pictures of Howard and Rudd. To put them in a table like that is to present them as fact- yet they are merely a reflection of a poll of a relatively small - albeit representative - slice of the Australian population. By all means keep the table of poll results futher down the page because that explains the results are not fact - just a poll result. The 2PP of the last election should probably be kept in the top table because it is an accurate reflection of an actual election result. If one wants to keep the Preffered PM and 2PP section in the top table it should probably be labelled as "AC Neilsen Poll - Preffered PM" and "AC Neilsen Poll - 2PP" to reflect that these are just poll results - and not fact. Might be worth including Newspoll results there as well. Hope I havent put anyone out and rest assured this is not a critisism of the person who included these stats in the table, in fact thanks for taking the time to try and improve this article. Cheers ronan.evans 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Remove them from the top table, especially since there are multiple pollsters. Rocksong 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This table is the product of a long discussion and is an attempt at a standard. There is a field for caveats and such to go in the footnotes. But the best objective estimate of the leaders' standing among voters is absolutely and vitally relevant to a campaign. If there's a case for ACNeilsen or Roy Morgan rather than Newspoll, I'd like to hear it. But if you want to change the table, you might as well change all of the similar tables - and discuss it here: Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that Newspoll is far more reputable than the other polls - but you seem to have entirely ignored what I said. Point is that poll results are not 100% accurate and this should be noted rather than being presented as an iron clas fact. ronan.evans 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Retiring MPs

Joestella why did you delete the list of retiring MPs and Senators? PMA 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudd calls for early election

Opposition leader Kevin Rudd demanded an early election to take place in April 2007 after being attacked in parliament over his links with Brian Burke. "If you had an election now, you'd have to have a separate half-Senate election next year. It just shows his inexperience. He doesn't even understand how our political system works," Mr Howard replied. ... Shanahan, Dennis (2007-03-06). "Labor's lead hits record high". The Australian. Retrieved 2007-04-15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

That Rudd called for, and Howard ruled out, an early 2007 election is relevant to the issue of timing, the subject of this section. Although history will not judge any such speculation kindly, the fact is it's a major issue now. It didn't look good for Rudd, granted, but that doesn't make coverage of it POV. I'd be interested to know CJ and Alex's objections to it. Joestella 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the issue isn't and never was an actual election call, Rudd was just politicking as usual - demonstrating the over-reaction of Costello and Co. by saying that if they really felt the sky was falling in because of the Burke stuff then they would call an early election, it was also a means to make fun of Howard and how bad he was polling at the time. Howard (also politicking) decided to take the call literally and mocked the 'calling' for an early election, deliberately missing the point... and it is only columnists such as Shanahan who look for angles from which to spin their own political philosophies who would think that it is or ever was a real issue. The paragraph you put in there was not about the timing of the actual election, I don't think you can seriously suggest that Rudd actually thought that Howard might (or should) call an early election, it was just part of the day-to-day spin from both sides which had absolutely no substance from start to finish. WikiTownsvillian 14:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your position sounds not unreasonable as opinions go, but in a Wikipedia context it also seems a bit like original research. Find me a reliable source saying it "absolutely no substance from start to finish" and add it to the paragraph. Find me two and I agree the whole thing can go. Joestella 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that in Wikipeadia you need to provide sources in order to include content not to remove, anyone can challenge content for any valid reason, the responsibility is on the person who wants to include the content to achieve consensus that the content is appropriate. WikiTownsvillian 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't meet my burden of proof, I say name yours, sir. Joestella 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:) I didn't say I couldn't, I just said I didn't need to because I'm not trying to add the new content. As for to what level you would need to prove your case, you need to show me sources from a neutral, notable reporter (Having a wikipedia article and/or a blog does not make an author a significant political reporter or mean they are respected in their field) that makes me or a consensus agree that the statement is notable and neutral. Ta, WikiTownsvillian 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The ALP has a rule that MPs and Senators must retire at the election closest to them turning 65.

Also, as people reach their early and mid sixties a lot of them do retire at that point so mentioning MPs and Senators in that age bracket as possible retirement candidates isn't that unreasonable given the likelihood from what happens in the community. Don't just delete things willy nilly or without Consensus. PMA 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do they really have this rule? Could you show me a link stating it? It sounds ridiculous to me that the ALP would discriminate on the basis of age! For a party that considers itself to be more inclusive than the Coalition this seems like one heck of a double standard. ronan.evans 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do. It isn't always applied - MPs can request that the party executive waive the requirement, but it often cdoes the retirement of MPs approaching 65. Rebecca 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat?

What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat?

In the unlikely circumstance that John Howard loses Bennelong but the coalition still retains a majority of seats, then a new Liberal party leader will need to be selected by the party after the election who will then become Prime Minister. Timeshift 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, Timeshift my friend. Astute election followers will remember that during the 1998 election, Kim Beazley faced a similar scenario. Due to a massive swing in 1996, Beazley's electorate of Brand became the most marginal seat in Australia, with just a handful of votes keeping him in office. Consequently, as he lead Labor to the 1998 poll, many pundits were speculating on the possibility that Beazley would lose his seat but Labor would win the election. In this scenario, there is an option whereby one of the elected government members would forfeit their position and allow the elected leader of the party to occupy the seat, thereby allowing him to govern the nation. Accordingly, were Howard to lose Bennelong yet the Coalition get back, Howard would still be prime minister as long as the party elected him as their parliamentary leader.I elliot 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The by-election would have to occur first though ;-) Look at 1929 - Stanley Bruce not only lost the election, he lost his seat. Did get a by-election organised and parachute back in? Nah, he waited till 1931, got his seat back, then let Lyons be PM :P Timeshift 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members, there has to be a by-election first. And for that to happen there has to be legislative action, requiring election of a speaker in the new parliament. Much easier to just elect a new leader. Kewpid 11:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members Maybe you should actually look into this before making such a statement. As I said earlier, under this exceptional circumstance, that is exactly what will happen.I elliot 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point me to any sort of constitutional or legislative provision that would allow such a thing to happen? Kewpid 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I elliot is simply wrong - there is no possible way an electorate can "swap members". If the Prime Minister was to lose their seat, another member would have to resign, thus creating a by-election for the PM to run in. There is no such thing as "exceptional circumstances". He could remain PM in the interim, as Rafy explains below, but he would have to contest and win said by-election if he wanted to remain in parliament. Rebecca 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca is exactly right. Maybe it is instructive to look at John Gorton, who was Prime Minister for a short time without being a Member of Parliament. Following the death of Harold Holt, Senator Gorton was selected as Liberal leader. While there is nothing to prevent a PM from being in the Senate (and many Senators have been senior ministers, eg Gareth Evans), such a PM would face practical difficulties. Gorton resigned as a Senator and contested a by-election for the seat of Higgins (inadvertently vacated by Holt), which he won. --Pete 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not require legislative action. When there is no speaker of the house, the Governor-General may issue the writs for a by-election resulting from any vacancy. (see sections 33 and 37 of the constitution). The Prime Minister could retain his commission for up to 3 months (section 64), in which time the by-election would have been held and he would again be a member of parliament. Rafy 05:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudd photo

Rather than get in to a revert war, can people please state which image they prefer (this or this), and why. Timeshift 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Timeshift, I actually prefer the old one (second in your links), I do think he looks a bit strange in the new one (first in your links), maybe it is just my screen. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the second (outside) one. I'm not sure what it is about the first, but it's not very flattering. He's looks like he's grimacing. Peter Ballard 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He's pulling a non-flattering face in both of them - it's just that the second one is lower quality, so it doesn't show as much! JPD (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image wise the first is better but overall the second suits wikipedia Crested Penguin 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better to use the party logos? This isnt a prime ministerial election. Rafy 11:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no prime ministerial elections, because prime ministers exist in the westminster system as leaders of their party. They are very important because they are the ones who influence who people vote for. Look at the ALP vote during Beazley and during Rudd. I think of it, simplistically, for a US comparison, as presidential election + legislative election = australian general election - we are choosing which party to govern, ergo we are choosing which leader to be the next Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The second image is going to be deleted unless the source is provided, anyway. JPD (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it not a crop of a shot that Dr. Carr took? Michael ^talk 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the references to first and second are misleading. This one is a crop from an Adam Carr image, and is tagged as such. I can't see any sign that this image uploaded by User:Dr Michael Black, and now tagged as having no source, is a Carr image. JPD (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rudd4.JPG. Michael ^talk 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's not even a crop - just a lower resolution. If we want to use that image, we should actually crop it, and it woudl be much more suitable. JPD (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Swing of Seats Needed.

Okay, this may seem like a stupid question so please bare with me. Why is it that it states the the Rudd Campaign needs only 16 seats to win government in the info box when just above it says that the government has 87 seats to Labor's 60. Surely that means that there are 27 seats needed by Labor? What have I missed? I know that 12 of those seats are Nationals seats, but if they are in coalition then shouldn't their combined number be the target for Labor? Couldn't the Liberals still form government in the Coalition with the Nationals despite being smaller than Labor? Sorry, I have searched and found no answer to this question of mine. Any help is appreciated, cheers! Chocolatemax 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If Labor have 60 seats and the coalition have 87, if Labor gains a seat from the coalition, what happens to those two numbers? Ok, now keep counting :-) Timeshift 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i.e It's a zero-sum game -- Rafy 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But then there's the 3 independents. So let's put it this way: there are 150 seats, so a party needs 76 or more to have a majority. So Labor needs 16 more to get to 76. Peter Ballard 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Swing for Coalition

I don't profess to understand the Australian political science conventions, but is 0.0% meant to be the maximum swing the Coalition can take against it if it's to retain power? Surely there's some level of downturn that would still see them in power? In the UK often a negative swing figure is given for the government - e.g. "a uniform swing against them of 4.3% will reduce the parliamentary majority to 1". Timrollpickering 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to the 0.0% in the box to the right? Because I believe that is the swing required to retain government, and since they are already in government they don't require a swing to retain the majority. The text next to 0.0% says "Swing needed", and they don't require a swing lol. I think someone is taking that a little too literally.

But I guess you mean there should be a percentage there that indicates the most extreme swing it can sustain but still have a majority. Well... I don't know what that would be. If Labor need a 4.8% swing would the Coalition merely require anything < 4.8%? I have no idea, that just seems logical to me but I might be missing something obvious. Cheers, Rothery 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Campaign section/page

I know the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I think we should have a section of the page or a new page that details the lead-up to the election. Maybe a good starting point could be Rudd becoming Labor leader. It could detail policy releases, scandals etc. Just a thought, Rothery 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Images

Version 1 and Version 2
Other than just being the geekiest possible images of our fine and respectable leaders, they're also, as AUSPIC images, not as copyright free as using the other ones—one of which is from a US Govt. source (public domain), and the other which was taken by the eminent Dr Carr (copyright released).

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim the geeky images as more suitable when they're of a dubious copyright status. And, whatever happened to "I'm 50/50 on this image change, so i have no qualms if someone wants to change it back" in the edit summary? Michael ^talk 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

50/50 due to the size, it didn't work having a big head for Rudd and a small one for Howard. Then I came across the AUSPIC tag, and realised that there are no copyright issues at all for the official ones. We have express permission. Timeshift 09:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to chip in here - that is a big problem, not a release from copyright problems. Images that Wikipedia could use "with permission" alone have been banned for at least a year now. If we're going to keep them, the permission is irrelevant; we need to have a watertight fair use claim. Rebecca 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please Rebecca? I'm not sure I understand. I have a detailed fair use rationale, along with the following consent:

This photograph is from the Australian Parliamentary Handbook, and is held under Crown copyright by the Commonwealth of Australia. The responsible Commonwealth agency, AUSPIC, gave written permission on 2 August 2005 for this photograph to be used at Wikipedia (see following). The use of this image by Wikipedia is contended by Australian Wikipedians to be fair dealing in Australia and fair use in the United States. (Letter from AUSPIC to User:Adam Carr: "Dear Dr Carr, Approval is granted to reproduce images nominated below [photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook] on the Wikipedia website. Subsequent use by a third party will incur reproduction fees if that use is of a commercial nature. Copyright remains with AUSPIC. Peter West, Director, AUSPIC auspic@aph.gov.au)"

That's a better image status than 95% of other images that have been hosted on wikipedia for ages. Click a few times on random article on the left and view 10 images. See how many have a copyright image with fair use claim with negligable to zero claim. Timeshift 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not anymore. It used to be the case that it was acceptable as long as we could legally use the image on Wikipedia alone. This is no longer the case - any images used now have to be freely licensed unless there is absolutely no alternative (this is interpreted broadly, so basically any photo of a living person is no longer even a candidate for free use). As such, the image explanation isn't much good at all, as the entire permission issue is now irrelevant. If it is fair use, a full rationale will have to be made on the individual image, and with regard to the new policies for handling fair use images. Based on what I've seen elsewhere, I'm not sure that it can be done. Rebecca 11:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about the copyright issues and so will not weigh in on that, but one thing that might be adding to the geek factor (other than the obvious) is that these pictures may have been taken some years ago and therefore not be the best representation of the two leaders. Judging by Howard's eyebrows I would say this is the case :) Do they update the photos each year for the Parliamentary Handbook? if so can we ask Dr Carr or Peter West to provide us with more recent images (if copyright issue is resolved that is), or better still just e-mail the offices of Kevin Rudd and John Howard and ask them to upload copyright free images, it is in their best interest to have good pics on wikipedia. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it mightn't be an idea to start contacting the offices of some senior MPs and tryign to get them to release an image into the public domain. It is possible to do it ourselves for some people, but it's a nuisance. (I could have got photos of a few MPs last month - alas, I have no camera.) Rebecca 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I never found Rudd's previous image to be decent - at least in this one he's smiling and looks reasonably recent (compared to some of his earlier parlimentary pictures...), and gotta remember that Howard appears in the 1987 election page, then 1996 until 2007. I think that image compromises well between the two ages. Timeshift 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the decision has been made. Oh well, back to an awful picture of Rudd. Timeshift 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues

It's beginning to get a tad outdated, as the coalition have released their broadband plan, as well as carried out radical aboriginal reform. Lots of issues have occured. I would write them up if I weren't afraid for a tad of bias leaking of my fingers. Timeshift 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest trimming it rather than expanding it. I'd be tempted to delete the last 3 paragraphs of the section, leaving only the first (which is at least based on hard data). It's a little early to say what the important election issues will be, and Wikipedia shouldn't be crystal ball gazing. Yes I know issues keep popping up all the time, but it's not Wikipedia's job to be a running news commentary either. So unless a group of people want to put a lot of work into it (to keep in NPOV and with appropriate emphasis), I'd suggest keeping very short, at least until the actual campaign. Peter Ballard 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Timegraph polling link

http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/ - hasn't worked since last night AFAIK. Does anyone know whats up with ozpolitics.info? Timeshift 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

this might help? WikiTownsvillian 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ozpolitics is back up Rafy 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal1.JPG - as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Howard#New_image - should be removed, consensus appreciated. Timeshift 10:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, seems to be reasonable to include. 203.28.240.20 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments arent even taken with a grain of salt mr anonymous - talk pages are to explain why. Saying "seems reasonable" is not a reason to include the photo. Again, as per WP rules, there must be a source. Simply saying it was scanned and we take it on good faith is not reasonable. Timeshift 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE at most66 days

OH what nonsense. 66 days is the maximum time after dissolution . dissolution need not occur at the time of notice.

In the current circumstance, if John Howard says today, September 21, 2007 that the election will be January 18,2008, then that is definitely what it will be and we will have more than 66 days notice.

202.92.33.210 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New Howard Pic

haha... you've got to be kidding... Timeshift 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Polling figures

I think the table is getting too big, does someone have the skills to turn it into a graph? Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I don't have an issue with it's size. Timeshift 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A graph would be a much more effective way to present it, whether the size is acceptable or not. JPD (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I prefer the table, and I think the current size is fine. --210.49.145.34 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why newspoll is the one opinion poll that is shown in detail, while glossing over the others. Even wiki is following the media obsession's obsession with treating newspoll as the main authority of voting intentions. Ah well. While I don't think the table is too big, I'm wondering what it's going to be like in a couple of months. Once the election is called, newspoll will run weekly (heck I think they polled every five days or so last election) which will mean the table will stretch out over a page. This is assuming the table stays once the election is called/finished, of course, but you see my point. Once it isn't easily readable in the space of a screenshot, I think it becomes too big and unwieldy. GreenGopher 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Galaxy seems to like being the odd one out with bizarre polling like 53-47 (see http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/), Roy Morgan's polling is up and down more than the sun, and ACNeilsen only releases monthly polling. Newspoll is well respected, has been around for a while, and don't seem to produce bizarre polling (again see the above link for comparison). Timeshift 07:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would actually be good if we had a graph with all four polls, Ozpolitics style. The information would be more accessible, would be able to show trends, and wouldn't bias any single poll. Someone just needs to plug all the data into excel and create the graphs I guess. Recurring dreams 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Recurring dreams. JPD (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I made the ozpolitics link so prominent in the lead for the polling section of the article - it really is the best resource for polling and is kept up to date with each poll released, I have not seen it more than 24 hours out from a release of a poll. If someone could replicate the graph with their own skills and include all four, it would be better than the current newspoll table. Other tables of interest are further down the page, such as 1996v2007 polling comparisons, and entrail polling showing that the downward trend isn't nearly enough to get it close to 50/50 by the end of the year. Timeshift 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the ozpolitics 2pp graph with OzPolitics creator's (Bryan Palmer) permission. Timeshift 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Maybe we can increase the size a little? Recurring dreams 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, I wouldn't object. I left it at default thumb size to leave it up to the user's browser's prefs. Timeshift 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed Bryan at OzPolitics has done some new graphing for anyone interested... this and this should be of particular interest. Timeshift 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An updated betting graph has been put up recently as well. Eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Newspoll! Recurring dreams 08:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Australian publish it on their website the night before - which is tonight ;-) Timeshift 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the page, Newspoll has 55% ALP 2PP down 4%. PPM has Rudd 48% steady, Howard 38% up 1%. Timeshift 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say i'm at all a fan of the quite frankly poorly designed table that the ozpolitics one was replaced with. Timeshift 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to add some details of how it is poorly designed? That's the least you could do, seeing as we don't have a properly licensed version. If it's easier to make your own or ask for relevant permission, fine, just don't sit there sniping. JPD (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The layout is dodgy. Compare to Bryan's. The dates, the fonts, the lines themselves, it just seems very "not right" compared to his. I don't have the graphing skills to advise how to improve. I'm already over it, despite the fact the quality of the article has just been drawn back. Frankly, I don't care to understand the policy, i'll keep doing as I do, and you keep up your image-deleting. Timeshift 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested can see my reply to this comment at User talk:JPD. I can't take seriously a critique that doesn't bother to say more than "dodgy" or "not right", but if someone else has specific concerns, I'm sure we could improve the image. JPD (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added a section to image page advising of outstanding polling that requires adding to the 2pp graph. Timeshift 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

POV checks?

Is someone keeping tabs on the addresses of editors here? Readers' confidence in the article, not to mention the whole project, will be significantly eroded if paid political functionaries are later discovered to have tweaked this article. Tony 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whom is this directed toward and exactly where is the POV in the election article? It's one of the most scrutinised articles on wikipedia, i'd guess more or less everyone in the project has it on their watchlist. What issues do you take with the article? Timeshift 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

However if you refer to all the new members who've signed up since Downer's "we should fire people up to edit them" remark (see my user page) and regularly attack pages such as the one currently going on at Kevin Rudd, then yes I agree with you. Not sure about this page though. Timeshift 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering whether the newly available site that can be used to exposed skullduggery is being used systematically to protect WP from underhand contributions. Tony 10:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they'd dare now. Anyway, regular editors have been keeping a good eye on this page for a while now. Recurring dreams 10:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

copy-edit

I've run through the first few sections. Please consider my inline queries (sorry to be messy). Change in percentage or comparison of percentages needs to be expressed in terms of percentage points (Labor was 4 points ahead); after the first occurrence, you can abbreviate it to point. See MOS. Tony 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

blog site admissable?

I find this one interesting—updated at least once a week, it has a running average of the five major bookies. Is it appropriate to include it in the external links? http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/category/betting-market Tony 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

article title

Any reason why this and other past Australian federal election articles are called "general election" in the article name and not "federal elections" as they are almost universally refered to? I don't think i've ever seen it called a 'general' election. Articles in other federal systems use 'federal election'; i.e Canadian federal election, 2006 and German federal election, 2005. Perhaps the Canadian article presents a good comprimise? (see its first sentence) Cheers. 58.106.28.119 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you as do the vast majority of us. Unfortunately a purposely troublesome user by the name of Joestella takes delight in arguing stupid points like this just because they may be technically right. WP:IAR doesn't exist when he's around it seems. Timeshift 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From recollection the various election articles were at "Australian legislative election, year" but a lot of people found this deeply confusing for a parliamentary government system. "General election" is the term used in the UK and I think the term got transferred to other countries' articles. A glance at Category:2007 elections, without looking at every individual article, suggests that "general election" is the common standard except for where the election explicitly decides a single tier/organ of government.

One absolute priority must be that this article has the same format as its fellows. And that may be trickier than it seems - Australia is unusual as there are four different types of elections that are the fellows to this one - House, House & 1/2 Senate, 1/2 Senate alone or Double Dissolution. This set-up is rare - usally either the upper house isn't directly elected or its elections are clearly separated from the lower house. And I think the most notable point will be who forms the government - i.e. who wins the lower house (the Dismissal aside) - and so having names that change on the basis of how much of the Senate was elected at the same time would just confuse readers. Timrollpickering 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "general election" terminology does have a British origin, then it should be deprecated as soon as possible. Britain has a very different constitutional structure, being a unitary state and not a federal one.

"Federal" would be more appropriate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support the change, but Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics is the place to discuss a question like this which impacts many articles. You can see it discussed in the archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics/Archive_2#Renaming_of_.5B.2Fgeneral_election.2F.5D_to_.5B.2Ffederal.2F.5D_and_.5B.2Fstate_election.2F.5D, in particular a post by Orderinchaos which surveyed the usage by all electoral commissions in Australia. I think the consensus was to get rid of "general", but no one cared enough to change it. Peter Ballard 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that this isn't the appropriately place to discuss it, but since no other avenue is open I'll say it here anyway. It's interesting that even the AEC refers to this election as the '2007 federal election' - I'm guessing because that's what everybody thinks of it as. [1]. Perhaps somebody could rekindle the discussion held earlier in the year before the election is actually held, as this article will almost certainly make the front page 'news' section of wikipedia come post-election day (as most other notable elections do) and federal would make much more sense to the casual reader. Just my thinking. GreenGopher 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continuing @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#title_of_election_articles 58.106.24.254 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Election date

Does anyone else think this section, being expanded by anons, is way too long-winded and will cause the average reader to lose interest? The detail previous was perfectly sufficient IMHO. Timeshift 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep - all there really needs to be at this stage of the electoral cycle is a paragraph on the constitutional requirements, and a paragraph stating Howard's intention to hold the election by early Decemeber 2007. The rest of the section has become POV orientated (would anybody seriously base their vote on how hot the weather is?)

Either way, the entire section gets the chop in (hopefully) a week or two when the election is called. One hopes it will be sooner rather then later, this phony election campaign is driving me nuts. GreenGopher 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most likely there will be an announcement of polling day very soon, and the notice will be minimal. That is, the election day will be the first Saturday that is more than 32 days after the day the election is announced. It is most likely that the Prime Minister will not irritate voters by sending them to vote during December or January. Since the inaugural 1901 federal election, no election has ever been called for a January date. The Australian school holidays occurring during December and January, and temperatures at their hottest, and the voters may vote based on their annoyance on choice of polling day. - totally POV/OR. Why people want to keep this section is beyond me. Timeshift 08:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the anon changes again. Not only was it too long winded, it's full of speculation and bizarrely worded statements. JPD (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, it was driving me nuts before. Basically, I cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and added in the GG bit. Feel free to revert accordingly if it's now too short GreenGopher 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Can we please all ensure it doesn't get changed again by anons until there's some developments. Timeshift 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the election could be held in January 2008. Auroranorth 12:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep - the article says as such in the third or fourth paragraph. The election date speculation section is a bit unwieldy. but it's there. GreenGopher 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The PM announces the election date. The PM has stated the election will take place by early December at the latest. The technicality of Jan 2008 has been mentioned. Stop tripping over yourselves people. Timeshift 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Timeshift, the PM has explicitly ruled out a January election in media statements. Orderinchaos 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this section go now or at least be radically reduced, now that the election has been called? Recurring dreams 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Radically reduced. Is still relevant as the speculation about the election date was at a level of national notability, rather than just journos sounding off as is usually the case. There is even talk coming out of private polling that the amount of uncertainty about the election date will itself have an impact on the standing of some key politicians and their chances of success from the apathetic end of the electorate - I'll have to wait for RS on that though. Orderinchaos 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)